Marshall Plan vs. Man With No Plan

Not only has President Bush made a wreck of Iraq; he’s now come out with yet another attempted rationalization for his war-without-a-point. And this one really outdoes the previous couple dozen.

The terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Bush noted, is “still in Baghdad creating havoc in Baghdad, trying to stop the march to democracy is what he’s trying to do right now, but he was there.” So you see, we invaded Iraq in order to stop folks like Zarqawi...who is now at large in Iraq taking pot shots at our troops. Mission accomplished! Never mind that before the war, the president rejected Pentagon plans to take out Zarqawi’s camp with surgical strikes on three separate occasions. It’s like that old saying: Why attack terrorists today when you can be engaged in an apocalyptic struggle to the death with them tomorrow?

But while Bush acts flip about his flop in Iraq, John Kerry has made his position on the war perfectly clear: at a speech Monday at New York University, Kerry declared that he would not have invaded Iraq. He stands by his vote for authorizing the possible use of force. (Reminder for President Bush: this is the resolution you were referring to in October 2002 when you said “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.”) But Kerry feels that force was not necessary. After all, Hussein admitted weapons inspectors, they found no WMD program, and as long as the inspectors remained in Iraq, it would have been hard for the dictator to start one.

Ironically, in taking a reasonable and resolute stance on Iraq, Kerry has opened himself up to a new political liability. The same day Kerry gave his speech, Bush accused his opponent of believing “our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power, not in prison.” Bush’s charge vastly over-simplifies the Iraq debate. But the silence of the Democrats on the connection between security and democracy only increases their vulnerability on the issue.

Political scientists have long observed that democracies virtually never go to war with one another. Nations that share a democratic ethos, based on the concept of non-violent resolution of conflicts, are able to trust each other and resolve differences diplomatically. Scholars have also argued that the lack of free expression and political participation in non-democracies may be the single most inflammatory element in the volatile mix of circumstances driving individuals to join terrorist movements.

Democrats should return to the legacy of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, and embrace the proposition that supporting the spread of democracy throughout the world is the single most effective strategy we can employ to foster global peace and defeat the rising tide of extremism. That does not mean Kerry has to concede the Iraq debate to Bush—that would be like FDR forfeiting the issue of economic management to Herbert Hoover.

This administration’s strategy for imposing democracy at gunpoint is profoundly naïve and completely unsustainable. Invading Iraq has made it easier for extremists to associate democratization with chaos and occupation and to paint moderate reformers working for democracy within their own countries as stooges for Western imperialism. Moreover, as insurgents gain control over ever-larger swaths of Iraq, and the CIA reports that civil war is a distinct possibility, are we honestly expected, as Bush suggested this week, to view the Iraq war as a prototype for “the advance of democracy” in other regions of the world? With 145,000 troops bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, does Bush plan to invade all or any of the scores of authoritarian regimes from North Korea to Zimbabwe? If Iraq represents Bush’s plan for spreading democracy, then the president simply has no plan.

Democrats should stand up for a more realistic approach to promoting democracy. They should demand that the administration make our support for regimes such as those in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan and Pakistan conditional on democratic reform in those countries. Perhaps the White House is hesitant to offend our allies in the fight against terrorism. If so, the administration does not understand how crucial democratic reform is to curbing militant extremism.

In the spirit of the Marshall Plan, the party of Truman should also propose funding for local non-governmental organizations working to promote development. Large middle classes have historically been favorable to democracy and able to put pressure for reform on their rulers. By fostering the spread of literacy and education in the developing world, and helping a global middle class to emerge, America can encourage the diffusion of stable democracy.

Kerry can win this debate if he tackles it head on. Instead of ducking the connection between democracy and security for fear of strengthening Bush, the senator should take the battle to the president’s turf. Kerry must explain how a realistic, far-sighted approach to promoting democracy could yield real success, where Bush’s policy has resulted—in the president’s own words—in “catastrophic success.”

Eoghan W. Stafford ’06 is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays.